Earned Wage Access: Exploring the CFPB's Proposed Interpretive Rule — Payments Pros – The Payments Law Podcast
Earned Wage Access: Exploring the CFPB's Proposed Interpretive Rule — The Consumer Finance Podcast
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Buy Now, Pay Later – Evolution, Regulation, and What You Need to Know about the CFPB Interpretive Rule Effective July 30
An In-Depth Analysis of the CFPB's Proposed Overdraft Rule — Payments Pros – The Payments Law Podcast
An In-Depth Analysis of the CFPB’s Proposed Overdraft Rule - The Consumer Finance Podcast
Exploring the Future of Open Banking: A Discussion on CFPB's 1033 Proposed Rule – Crossover Episode With Regulatory Oversight Podcast – The Consumer Finance Podcast
CFPB's Section 1071 Final Rule (Part 3): Potential Problem Areas – The Consumer Finance Podcast
CFPB's Policy Statement on Abusiveness (Part 2) - The Consumer Finance Podcast
A New World for Mortgage Banking – What You Need to Know About the CFPB’s Final Mortgage Servicing Rules
As we reported in June, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in Cantero v. Bank of America on bank pre-emption matters that remanded cases decided by three different Circuit Courts, finding that the courts did not apply...more
On August 27, we blogged about the Ninth Circuit unpublished panel opinion in Kivett v. Flagstar Bank issued upon remand of the case from the Supreme Court with instructions to follow the guidance of the Supreme Court...more
The Litigation Byte is the new name and format for McGlinchey’s Commercial Law Bulletin. Our new format reflects McGlinchey’s national coverage and our expanded footprint while still serving up the digestible, insightful...more
Can you say 0 to 60? Not cars, but pretty much everything to do with financial services. A new year, a new administration, and new challenges for providers. Prior CFPB Director Kraninger is long gone. Acting Director Uejio...more
Before the United States Supreme Court opinion in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2015) __ U.S. __, 135 S.Ct. 790, the law in the Ninth Circuit was that a borrower who sought to exercise a conditional right of...more
Agencies Issue Proposal on Method to Adjust Threshold for Exempting Small Loans from Special Appraisal Requirements - On July 22, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Reserve Board and the Office...more
A little over one year ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 790 (2015), which resolved a circuit court spit regarding how a mortgage borrower may exercise the...more
Earlier this year, in Jesinoski v. Countrywide, the Supreme Court answered an important question regarding the procedure for rescinding a residential mortgage refinance loan under the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). Under...more
In a recent unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court held that a borrower exercising her right to rescind a mortgage loan under the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) merely had to provide written notice of rescission...more
In This Issue: - Supreme Court Provides TILA Home Loan Rescission Guidance - West Virginia Legislature Proposes Changes to the WVCCPA - Defeating Another Challenge to the Mortgage Electronic Registration System...more
On January 13, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court settled a circuit court split regarding how and when a mortgage borrower may exercise the right of rescission under the Truth-in-Lending-Act (“TILA”) and the CFPB’s implementing...more
In a unanimous decision issued on January 13, the Supreme Court held that a borrower exercises its right to rescind under Section 1635 of the Truth In Lending Act (TILA), simply by notifying its creditor of its intent to...more
The Truth-in-Lending Act (“Act”) was adopted in 1969. It has spawned dozens of lawsuits and hundreds of administrative rules and interpretations. Recently, the United States Supreme Court had an opportunity to address the...more
Why it matters - In a victory for consumers, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) does not require borrowers to file suit to rescind a mortgage loan transaction within the...more
Action Item: In light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Jesinoski, lenders should be aware that written notice provided by the borrower, within three years of the loan consummation, is sufficient to exercise...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently held in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. that borrowers exercising their right to rescind mortgages under the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) only need to provide written notice to...more
Background of Notice versus Lawsuit Issue - The Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), as implemented by Regulation Z, provides borrowers with a powerful tool: the right to rescind certain mortgage loan transactions. This...more
In Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, et al. (No. 13-684), the U.S. Supreme Court has eased the process by which a borrower may seek to walk away from his home mortgages, holding that the borrower, in order to avail himself...more
In Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., decided January 13, 2015, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split and clarified that borrowers need not file a complaint in order to invoke their right to rescind...more
The United States Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a borrower relying on the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) to rescind his mortgage loan need only mail written notice of his intent to his lender within three years of the...more
On January 13, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held that borrowers exercising their right to rescind a loan under the Truth in Lending Act must provide written notice to their lender within the three-year rescission period but...more
The Supreme Court agreed this month to resolve a stark divide in the United State Courts of Appeals regarding the time bar for residential mortgage borrowers to file suits related to mortgage loan rescissions under the Truth...more